provides the necessary order information. Should the reader have returned to this website having already read the Commentary below but with a view to seeing the opening index page that existed before my book CREATION: The Physical Truth was published then the link connection is:
a title chosen because I authored a book entitled Physics without Einstein that was published 38 years ago in 1969.
The primary purpose of CREATION: The Physical Truth is to show how the physical underworld of space determines the value of Planck's constant h, or rather the dimensionless quantity, the fine-structure constant, that incorporates h by linking it with the electron charge e and the factor c which relates the electrostatic and electromagnetic forms of that charge. Its further purpose is then to show how the energetic underworld of space which accounts for that fine-structure constant evaluation has a meson, heavy-electron, feature that allows that underworld to create protons. The proton-electron mass ratio is then derived theoretically and found to be 1836.152. Inevitably, based on consideration of the dynamical balance in the quantum underworld of space as required by the Heisenberg jitter motion and the Principle of Uncertainty, this introduces the action accounting for gravity and so the theory presented discloses how G, the constant of gravitation, is determined.
Such theory was presented by the author in his earlier works and the effort should have been recognized many years ago. Sadly, however, that was not to be, because (one must presume) the analysis was based on recognizing the need to revive belief in an aether medium. Most physicists accept the Einstein doctrine that merely seeks to relate by mathematical formulation what we can see and measure in the universe to which we belong. However, the modern physicist is baffled when it comes to explaining the energy source from which the universe was created. Given an aether that is alive with energy and interacts with our atomic world one can answer that problem but it has to be an aether that can account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in physical terms.
Given such an aether, the problem then is how to overcome other errors in our physical picture of things and construct a power generating system that can replicate our sun's energy source, falsely deemed to be attributable to nuclear fusion of its hydrogen atoms. With this in mind I refer the reader to pages 150-153 of CREATION:The Physical Truth in the chapter entitled Nuclear Fusion. I there state that my theory can explain the magnetic moment of the deuteron and then discuss how the theory explains the relative abundance of protons and deuterons. Where, I ask, in the teaching of physics, is there an explanation of what it is that governs the relative abundance of deuterium and hydrogen atoms? The nuclear fusion of two protons is a very important topic in physics, because, in the context of hot fusion, it is deemed to be the energy source that powers the sun and because, in the context of cold fusion, certain experiments offer promise in the quest for a new pollution-free energy source.
I am writing these words on April 15, 2007 and have before me the March 2007 issue of PHYSICS WORLD , the monthly journal sent to members of the U.K. Institute of Physics. The Institute's News Editor, Edwin Cartlidge, there presents on pages 10 and 11 a very interesting news report entitled The secret world of amateur fusion, which I found rather astounding. After telling us that ten billion euros are being spent building the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which is due to switch on in 2016, as a test to see if we can replicate on Earth the sun's nuclear fusion process, he writes:
‘Contrast this with the device (a so-called fusor) that sits on a bench in the corner of a quiet laboratory at Cambridge University. Like the reactors built by professional scientists, this machine can be used to create fusion reactions - tens of thousands of deuterium-deuterium reactions per second…..'
He goes on to explain how this device was put together by two school students, Henry Hallam who had become a second year engineering undergraduate at Cambridge, and Fergus Noble who would start his natural-sciences degree course later in the year. This is followed by an expression of doubt that the energy generated by such devices will ever exceed the amount of energy they consume, but it tells us that ‘there are those who believe that a variation on the fusor could one day be used to produce useful amounts of energy, and do so far more cheaply than conventional reactors'. However, Edwin Cartlidge enlightens us further by referring to several others who expect success in this pursuit based on Farnsworth's fusor that was upgraded in the 1960s by Robert Hirsch to become the model now used by those continuing this research. This comment was followed with the words: ‘It consists of two concentric spherical steel grids - with the outer acting as positive electrode and the inner a negative electrode - contained within an outer steel sphere filled with a dilute fuel gas'.
I mention that because, though I can see a future prospect for development of cold fusion reactors, I suspect that the use of electrical devices having concentric cylindrical electrodes will prove to be the foremost candidates for the ultimate power generating technology that will serve as the world's energy resource by tapping energy from the quantum underworld that pervades all space. My thoughts on that are now of published record in a U.K. patent application GB2432463. What I there describe is the kind of device that I see as linked by the physics that caused the sun to spin, whereas gravity force by acting primarily between the protons accounts for the sun having within it a radial electric field such as applies between concentric electrodes in an electrically powered structure. The latter field acting on the quantum powered underworld of space induces spin owing to a phase lock arising from the dynamic activity that accounts for gravitation.
Now, in referring to specific sections of my book CREATION: The Physical Truth, I will, owing to the above reference to cold fusion, first highlight what is disclosed on pages 150-152. You will see that on page 150 I refer to the fact that more than twenty years ago my theory of published record allowed me to derive a value for the magnetic moment of the deuteron that was in wonderful part per million accord with the measured value. That is quite an accomplishment and I find it disappointing that the effort has not be recognized by the scientific community.
Here explaining my position I stress that the experimental value for this quantity (0.857438 nuclear magnetons) is certainly known to part per million accuracy because it is based on a combination of four quantities, each measured to a precision better than one in ten million. These are (i) the deuteron/proton spin magnetic moment ratio, (ii) the electron/proton spin magnetic moment ratio, (iii) the electron anomalous g/2 factor and (iv) the proton/electron mass ratio. The theoretical value that I derived from my theory is 0.857439 nuclear magnetons and, should anyone think that this result was a contrived manipulation of data aimed at achieving such close agreement, then I invite such a critic to check my analysis.
The formula involved is:
As to the mass of the core deuteron, this is essentially that of two protons offset by the energy of its electron-positron composition, allowing for the electrostatic interaction energy that is negative in value. This mass is slightly different for the three states but it is calculable and, as that paper shows, is found to be lower than that of two protons by the amount 11/8 times electron mass for state A. State B has a core mass less than that of two protons by 9/8 times electron mass, whereas state C has a core mass less than that of two protons by 10/8 times electron mass. You can therefore see how that factor 71/56 is derived. The 2: 1: 4 ratio of A: B: C states gives 2(11) + (9) + 4(10) divided by 7 and by 8 which is 71/56. The 1836 factor is the proton/electron mass ratio.
However, what then is so very impressive, is that this finding of the 2: 1: 4 ratio of deuteron states is the governing factor which determines the chance of deuteron fission to create free protons and the chance of proton fusion to create a deuteron. Here we need to accept that the quark behaviour of the proton as comprising three components requires it to alternate between a state in which it is a proton combined with an electron and a positron and a state in which it is an antiproton sitting between two positrons. Here the negative interaction energies are those of 7/4 and 9/4 times electron mass, respectively, the average being that of 2 electron mass units and so balancing the mass added by the electron-positron presence. This does not preclude the transient existence of the bare proton as a single charge form when created or released from electron-positron bondage by a nuclear reaction.
The deuteron creation from proton fusion occurs by creating the ground state A deuterons plus residual electrons, positrons and protons, a process subject to three conservation criteria. Conservation of energy, charge form and space are essential, the latter meaning the net volume of space occupied by whatever form the charges have. Given the three equations required by these three conservation conditions the conversion of the three-charge proton form into the least energy deuteron form involves sets of 35 such protons. Of these 32 fuse together to become 16 deuterons shedding electrons and positrons as necessary to comply with the conservation requirements and 3 such protons shed their electron-positron components to become bare proton charges at least transiently. The trigger event for such an action is when all 35 protons are in their least energy state, meaning, a one in two chance raised to the power 35.
As to the reverse process, the fission of deuterons to create protons, the chance of this occurring can be calculated by applying the same conservation principles. Deuterons, as noted above, exist in a mix of three states, of which state B has the highest energy and at any instant 1 in 7 of the deuterons exist in that state. The energy needed to trigger fission is simply the energy quantum needed to create a single electron or positron. Analysis shows that 8 B-state deuterons experience fission in the same trigger event, but that the conservation of energy, space occupied by charge and charge parity require also the transformation of 11 C-state deuterons into 10 A-state deuterons as part of the same event. This produces 18 protons. The trigger event for such an action is when a group of 8 deuterons are all in the same highest energy B-state, meaning a one in seven chance raised to the power 8.
From these data we can compute the relative abundance of protons and deuterons that must exist in a stable atomic mixture, as in water. The resulting ratio of protons and deuterons is:
To derive with such accuracy both this hydrogen/deuteron abundance ratio and the magnetic moment of the deuteron from the same physical account of the structure of the deuteron is quite remarkable. It is also all the more important owing to the relevance of such knowledge in the quest to generate our power needs by harnessing cold fusion. Just imagine the consequences if those involved in nuclear research were to build a nuclear reactor containing a large volume of water from which the deuterons have been extracted. There would be an inherent tendency for the protons of the hydrogen atoms to combine in order to restore the equilibrium state of balance required by that 6705 proton/deuteron ratio. That would mean nuclear fusion subject to a controlling factor, the need for an outflow of positive electric charge or an inflow of negative charge. All that is needed is for that body of ‘light' water to be subjected to electric field action that promotes electron inflow.
On page 184 of CREATION: The Physical Truth I refer to the fact that research scientists had borrowed for their experiments a very large quantity of heavy water from Ontario Hydro where such water has a function in its nuclear reactor plant. Heavy water would need an outflow of electrons in order to acquire the positive charge needed for deuterons to experience fission by conversion into normal water but this hardly involves any risk of catastrophe because such nuclear transmutation needs energy inflow. On the other hand such experimental pursuits, if relying on water purified by extraction of deuterium which will then seek to recover the equilibrium proton/deuteron ratio by nuclear fusion, merely require inflow of electrons and must generate heat, hopefully without explosion consequences.
It is for those involved in well-funded cold fusion research to deliberate on such issues, whereas all I can do is to outline the theoretical factors that govern the relevant physics. The proton is not a point charge or a combination of three point charges (quarks) that are fractions of the proton's unit charge. I have stressed the need to develop theory using the formula known to J. J. Thomson, as mentioned on page 50 of CREATION: The Physical Truth.
As a further interesting note pertaining to the nuclear transformation between protons and deuterons I now draw attention to a footnote on page 263 in a book I purchased when I began my university education (1945). It was the second edition of a book by H. A. Wilson entitled Modern Physics, published in U.K. in a Student's Physics series by Blackie & Son Ltd.
In discussing the relationship between H1 and 1H2, the proton and the deuteron, Wilson gives the equation:
So, in now considering these words that I first read more than 60 years ago, I am tempted to see if my account of the proton and deuteron relationship agrees or disagrees with Wilson's equation. I refer again to that Hadronic Journal paper referenced above. In it I calculated the mass of the neutron in relation to the proton and found it to be greater, in mass-energy terms, by 1.2933214 MeV, which I noted as being remarkable, given that the Particle Data Group in a 1984 report had stated the measured difference as being 1.293323 ± 0.000016 MeV. As to the deuteron core mass that value as derived by my theory is less than the mass of two protons by that above-presented factor of (71/56)/1836 in proton mass units. This is 71/56 electron mass units or 0.6479 MeV and, according to that Wilson equation, this plus 1.2933 MeV should equal 5q. It is therefore quite fascinating to find that the theory gives the energy quantity as 1.9412 MeV, which, divided by 5, is 0.388 MeV. That compares with Wilson's approximate value for q of 0.387 MeV.
The Mass of the Deuterium Atom
A question that now arises is whether the above analysis can account for the measured mass of the deuterium atom and to answer this I need to suggest one minor change affecting the picture of the changing states of the deuteron. I believe that for one sixth of the time that the deuteron spends in one of its four state-C conditions during a cycle of change, it will have its satellite electron and positron coupled together in charge surface contact, which will increase the magnitude of the overall negative charge interaction energy of the deuteron. It will amount to 1/7 times 1/6 times 3/4 electron mass-energy units, which is 1/56. In contrast the negative interaction energies applicable to the core deuteron A, B and C states sum to [2(35) + 25 + 4(18)]/56, which is 167/56 electron mass units. Adding 1/56 makes the total negative interaction energy equal to that of 3 electron mass units, meaning that the total negative interaction energy of the deuteron states exactly compensates for the mass energy of the 3 electron-positron components present in each of those states. In summary this means that the deuteron mass energy is exactly that of two protons. This may seem rather surprising but it makes sense if one is seeking to explain how the deuteron is created based on the fusion of two protons, especially having regard to involvement of the aether background in absorbing one unit of positive electrical charge. Also it seems logical for the total energy of the deuteron to remain constant in spite of its fluctuations in form as between the A, B and C states. How, then, can one explain the measured mass of the deuterium atom, bearing in mind that it is not precisely the mass of two protons?
Well, here I can but offer one way of looking at this problem. The deuterium atom supposedly consists of an orbital electron with a deuteron as the atomic nucleus. Reference data indicate that its mass in atomic mass units is 2.014102 which is 3671.366 electron mass units. Subtracting the mass of two protons 2(1836.152) implies that the mass of the deuterium atom is lower than the mass of two protons by the amount 0.938 electron mass units. Allowing for the orbital electron in the atom this means that the deuteron effective in contributing to the deuterium atomic mass exhibits a mass lower by 1.938 electron mass units. One must therefore ask how that atomic mass has been measured. If by mass spectrograph can it be that the measured reading applies essentially to the C-state form of the deuteron nucleus with the electron-positron pair not registering as part of the C-state core owing to its separate existence in independent charge form? The answer to this depends upon how the deuteron reacts when subjected to mass measurement within a mass spectrograph. Owing to the separate charge and much lower mass of the electron-positron pair it is possible that its cyclic changes of state will be affected under such measurement conditions, as by its electron and positron satellite in the deuteron nucleus of the dominant C-state not revealing their presence as a deuteron component. This would account for that discrepancy of very nearly two electron mass units, bearing in mind the negative energy interaction of the opposite polarity charges involved and a spacing that can be subject to uncertainty factor associated with quantum jitter motion. On such a basis one cannot expect to obtain a precise theoretical picture matching the results obtained earlier for the deuteron magnetic moment and the proton-electron abundance ratio.
Given the exceptional nature of those results for the physical theory under discussion, there can surely be no doubt that the basis on which the theory is developed is correct and warrants attention in the onward quest to generate power by harnessing cold fusion technology. Readers will therefore understand why I see what I have written as ENERGY AND OUR FUTURE in part III of CREATION: The Physical Truth as warranting consideration by those who fund research in the energy field.
As to the other important message concerning energy generation that I intend that book to convey, namely replicating in the laboratory, if we can, the very process by which our sun acquired its spin energy, I will just summarize a little on that theme in the last of the following three observations and at the end of this Commentary by further reference to that patent application mentioned above.
The Sun's Energy Source
Firstly, though the sun is almost wholly composed of hydrogen atoms which no doubt have the relevant equilibrium mix of protons and deuterons, I do not see ‘cold fusion' as a process that heats the sun. My book makes it clear that hot fusion requiring a core temperature of a hundred million degrees is out of the question. It is impossible because the sun is ionized which means that its gravitation, almost wholly that between protons which account for most of the sun's mass, must set up a positive electric charge in the sun that precludes its compaction. I was pleased, after my book was published, to be informed by the U.S. publishers of a book by Donald E. Scott entitled The Electric Sky bearing the caption A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy that I was not alone in having recognized this fact. However, I was somewhat perplexed when finalizing this account on 3rd May 2007 upon reading in the U.K. newpaper, The Times an obituary of Professor Carl Friedrich Weizsacher, which declared that:
'He was best known for his solution to the fundamental problem of astrophysics: how stars can radiate immense amounts of energy for billions of years. In 1938 he suggested that the energy comes from a chain of nuclear fusion reactions that is possible because of the high temperatures and pressures found in the dense central cores of stars.'One can but wonder how Weizsacher had measured the pressure and temperature at the centre of a star, if he was not just basing such presumption concerning pressure and temperature on the assumption that they were necessary to trigger a fusion reaction. Surely here is a 'myth' of modern astronomy, given the fact mentioned on page 148 of my book CREATION: The Physical Truth, the reference to the suggestion by J. H. Jeans in the journal Nature at page 101 of 2 June, 1904, as later elaborated in his book EOS: Or the Wider Aspects of Cosmogony published by Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, Ltd. in 1928. Jeans declared that it was the mutual annihilation of protons and electrons that accounted for the sun's energy and the whole of that 1929 book was devoted to that subject. I will just quote here a passage from page 28 of that book:
'The temperatures in the interior of stars are higher still, and although we cannot measure them directly we can calculate them with very fair precision. The temperature at the centre of the sun is found to be in the neighbourhood of 50,000,000 degrees, and this is a fairly average temperature for the stars in general.'It was only one page later that Jeans declared that 'at the centres of most of the stars nearly all, or perhaps quite all, of the electrons must have broken loose from their parent atoms, leaving the stellar matter almost or quite pulverized into its constituent nuclei and electrons'. So, why did Jeans not then realise that those positively charged nuclei carried the mass that accounted for most of the sun's gravity force and so must have caused those atomic nuclei to set up a mutually repulsive electric field that would preclude further compaction and so then implied a uniform pressure and temperature within the sun? It is, indeed, quite shocking that physics has got itself in so confused a state concerning the sun's energy and what could become our future energy resource. It is especially shocking when we consider that the book by Jeans was in its third reprint in January 1929 and was an account of the Trueman Wood Lecture delivered in U.K. before the Royal Society of Arts on 7th March, 1928. Yet we are told in 2007 that Weizsacher in 1938 'is best known for his solution to the fundamental problem of astrophysics, how stars, like the sun, radiate immense amounts of energy' thanks to nuclear fusion of its atoms.
Secondly, concerning the sun and the fact that it spins about an axis in space, my theory from which I derive in my book the value of the fine-structure constant assures me that the existence of a radial electric field with respect to an axis will develop rotation of a coextensive volume of the space medium about that axis drawing on the energy activity of the quantum underworld. Here is a pointer to a source of energy available everywhere in space owing to a phase-lock governing motion of its hidden electrical charge, that of a structured array of particles that I call quons. Potentially that is a source of energy, but it is not the primary energy source that sustains the sun's radiation. It is the fact that its hydrogen atoms are pulled by gravity so closely together that their orbiting electrons collide and shed energy which heats the sun. The result is ionization but, as we well know, an ionized atom does not stay long in that state, because it recovers by somehow capturing a roving electron and locking again onto the ‘merry-go-round' of the quantum underworld, meaning it taps the vast energy resource that accounts for quantum theory in physics. We cannot exploit that possibility without contriving to squeeze atoms so closely together by asserting adequate pressure on hydrogen gas and that is not within our engineering capability.
So, thirdly, we must look to the possibility of replicating the sun's spin on a pulsating basis. Whereas the sun was set spinning upon its creation, it keeps spinning at the same speed and so the energy imported by the quantum phase-lock was a one-off event. However, if we can replicate the action in a concentric electrode capacitor system that sets up a pulsating radial electric field, then a steady inflow of space energy seems a possibility. That is why I mention Tesla on page 170 of my book CREATION: The Physical Truth. Tesla developed high voltage transformers of which the primary and secondary windings were of concentric cylindrical form well spaced to allow for the high voltage between primary and secondary windings. Being for use with alternating current here was a structure having a pulsating radial electric field. He encountered anomalous activity as if energy was being fed into his apparatus from the environment and attributed this to atmospheric electricity, leading to a belief that electric energy could be propagated atmospherically and our energy needs supplied by using antenna to tap into that energy source. At the time this was hardly technology that could encourage investment given the ‘free-for-all' implications involved and so this aspect of Tesla's research has become mere scientific folklore.
How can the scientific community justify ignoring what Tesla had discovered, given that the onward interest by others, such as Moray, as described in that book by Keith Tutt mentioned on page 167 of CREATION: The Physical Truth, supported the discovery that energy could be tapped from the electrical state of our space environment? The justification for such ignorance could only be the satisfaction at the time that our oil resources were adequate to meet our needs and so, nearly a century on from there, it is time for a 'wake-up' call, given that those oil resources are running out and will not be available when the youth of today reach old age.
The Aether Factor in Atomic Structure
Before concluding this Commentary I wish now to outline a physical concept that could justify effort by young would-be researchers who are interested in contributing to the advance of physical theory. It is briefly touched upon on page 41 of my book CREATION: The Physical Truth, where I refer to the discovery that silicon atoms having a nuclear charge Z of 14 have been produced by experiment in a form in which they have a nuclear mass 42, rather than the normal value of 28. I here quote the paragraph in the middle of page 41:
'The clear significance of this is the involvement of aether structure in the sub-structure of the atomic nucleus of atoms other than hydrogen and the implication this has for aether drag ......'
What, you may wonder, is meant by 'involvement of aether structure in the sub-structure of the atomic nucleus'? I really feel I have done enough in my theoretical physics efforts without struggling to prove my case and going even further but here are a few thoughts that warrant some attention.
Physics as presently taught requires acceptance that atoms comprise a combination of Z protons and A-Z neutrons. Suppose, however, that there are no neutrons in atomic structure and all we have is a combination of the isotopes 1H1 and 1H2, meaning protons and deuterons. This might imply that A-Z cannot exceed Z, but it can if we say that some of these charged nucleons can form into a structural lattice array that locks onto aether structure, replacing some of the quons, enough to equal A-2Z, these then serving as what might seem to be neutral particles having zero electric charge.
What, if any, support can we find for this hypothesis. Well, just scan through the well-established data for the atomic structure of the whole list of known atoms. There is only the 1H1 hydrogen form that has a Z value less than twice A and none record A/Z values as high as 3, which is why that discovery of 14Si42 is so exceptional. To proceed, and with the physics of the atomic bomb and nuclear fission in mind, let us look at the case for uranium. It has an abundance that is quite high given its position in the atomic spectrum. It is therefore stable or effectively so, given that its half-life is estimated at 4.5 billion years. It has the isotopic formula 92U238, whereas the isotopic form 92U235, the extracted form that features in the atomic bomb is unstable. What then is so special about 92U238? Well, just assume it comprises nothing but deuterons, of which 27 have taken up positions in the aether replacing quons. The mass of 27 deuterons will be seen as contributing no charge to the nuclear properties of the uranium atom. It will have a Z value that is half of 238 minus twice 27, which is 92. Why then is 27 so special? The answer is the 3 by 3 by 3 cube configuration of aether structure within the nucleus, a symmetrical structure, symmetry being conducive to stability. Such stability does not exist for the 92U235 atomic nucleus.
Then ask if stability is enhanced where the charge components, 92 in the case of 92U238, sit outside that 3 by 3 by 3 nuclear core component. Symmetry indicates a 5 by 5 by 5 structure enclosing that 3 by 3 by 3 core meaning that there are 125 minus 27 or 98 possible sites for the 92 deuteron charges that attach themselves to the aether sub-structure but do not replace the quons. A cube has six side faces and so if the central position on each side face of the 5 by 5 by 5 structure is not occupied by a deuteron we do have a symmetrical configuration and 98 minus 6 is 92.
If one now draws attention to the fact that 90Th232 sits close to 92U238 in the periodic table and has a similar stable form, one can say that symmetry is still preserved for this case because there need be no deuteron at the very centre of the 3 by 3 by 3 structure and, instead of 6 sites at face-centres in the sites of the enveloping cubic structure being unoccupied, the 8 corner sites are unoccupied. The result is that A is reduced by 3(2) and Z by 8 minus 6, as is the case.
Also relevant to this same line of enquiry is the reported 'unexpected' appearance of barium and lanthanum as products of neutron bombardment of uranium, as reported in 1939 by Hahn and Strassmann (Naturwiss., 27, pages 11 and 89). The uranium nucleus is said to divide into at least two nuclei of lighter weight when fission is triggered. What is so special about 56Ba138 and 57La139?
Well, just suppose that the 3 by 3 by 3 aether lattice core sites within the nuclei of these two atoms are occupied by protons, 26 having replaced the quons, the central site being unoccupied in 56Ba138 but being occupied by a proton that has not replaced a quon in 57La139. Note that 138 minus 26 is 112, which can be the atomic mass of 56 deuterons and 139 minus 27 is 112, which can also be the atomic mass of 56 deuterons. Note then that 125 minus 27 is 98, which indicates the number of sites in the outer aether lattice group. So if each of the 8 corner regions has 7, corresponding to the number of sites in a 2 by 2 by 2 cube corner of the 125 group less the corner site of the 27 group, we have perfect cubic symmetry.
As to that silicon topic raised on page 41 of my book CREATION: The Physical Truth, the 3 by 3 by 3 configuration has 8 corner sites plus 6 face-centre sites on the cube faces, 14 sites, that can be occupied by protons that do not replace quons, leaving 13 sites which involve quon replacent, 12 by protons and one central site by a deuteron. Overall this accounts for the A 28 value and the Z 14 value. Concerning that special case where silicon could have Z of 14 and A of 42, this would apply if the 14 sites occupied by protons were occupied instead by deuterons.
For the simple case where A does equal 2Z, as for oxygen atomic nuclei, attachment to aether structure need not have quon replacement if the nucleus comprises nothing other than deuterons and for the more complex situation posed, for example, by 20Cd40, which does have A equal to 2Z there can be a need for quon charge replacement. 13 deuterons plus 14 protons could account for a value of A of 40. Based on a 3 by 3 by 3 structure, cubic symmetry might not be possible but stability could depend upon two diagonally opposite corner sites having similar composition. There are 20 sites on the cube edges, meaning 27 less one centre site and 6 face-centred sites. These 20 sites do not involve quon replacement and contain 14 protons and 6 deuterons. There is quon replacement by deuterons at the 7 other sites. At two diagonally opposite corner sites the three adjacent edge centre sites are occupied by deuterons, the other 14 edge sites being occupied by protons. This configuration satisfies the A of 40 and Z of 20 requirement.
What I am suggesting here is that the understanding of the nuclear fission of uranium atoms involves physics which must take account of the aethereal cubic lattice structure in space. I see this as explaining why, based on proton and deuteron content alone, the atomic nuclei can have A greater than 2Z without neutrons being an essential component of the atomic nucleus. This is important because, by this brief analysis above, we see that there is good reason to believe that the electrical vacuum medium suggested as the basis for understanding quantum theory has a role that governs atomic fission as well as atomic fusion evidenced by the proton-deuteron transformation.
Introducing the Duon
I should now note that, though I have developed the above picture of an atomic nucleus, other than that of the hydrogen atom, as being governed by a deuteron composition and interaction with the underlying lattice-structured vacuum medium, there is the possibility that a fundamental particle form other than the deuteron is involved. I say this because, on pages 122-123 of my book CREATION: The Physical Truth I show that a positive muon and a negative muon might merge to pool their energy, without loss, by being in surface contact with one contracting to half its original charge radius, thereby creating a particle form that has a mass twice that of the muon. That gave basis for the existence of the dimuon which was the needed nucleus for proton creation. By a similar argument one could infer the existence of a particle having the charge of the proton or antiproton but double the proton mass. Such a particle, which I could name as the duon, though not having the structure of a deuteron, might exist within an atomic nucleus but be short-lived and evade detection distinguishing it from a deuteron if separated from that atomic nucleus. So my suggestion is that it might be that reference to a deuteron as a component of an atomic nucleus in the above account could instead be reference to such a duon as a nuclear component. In making this suggestion concerning duons I am encouraged by the thought that the case for the existence of a dimuon is so strong, given its role in proton creation as portrayed by this theory, and yet the dimuon has defied detection, presumably by its rapid decay. The same could apply to the duon, especially as its detection would be even more difficult, given that it could be mistaken for a deuteron.
To conclude this Commentary concerning my book, I can but say that it does not surprise me that most of those who may read it will have little interest in what I see as of special interest in physics, namely the understanding of the physical underworld that regulates the values of Planck's constant, the constant of gravity and the proton/electron mass ratio. After all, that is of mere educational interest and it seems our student population is attracted to subjects other than pure physics. Though I would like to be recognized during my lifetime for the contributions I have made by deciphering what governs the values of those constants, I now see us headed for a catastrophic future if we cannot devise the technology needed to tap into the omnipresent energy underworld of space. That is why I have written my book CREATION: The Physical Truth. It was, in 2004, why, given my professional background in the patent field, I sought and was duly granted U.K. Patent No. GB2390941, hoping that the world might pay attention and seek to exploit the ideas involved. It is why, giving that subject further consideration, I have seen the need to suggest an essential modification concerning that technological idea, this being the subject of U.K. patent application GB2432463, as mentioned above. The technical details can be seen by referring to the Energy Exploitation Message on my web pages at:
Below, referenced to the relevant pages of my book CREATION: The Physical Truth, are a few errata and comments concerning the links to the items of record in my web pages.
Page 92: The reference to the item entitled The Exclusion Principle is not on this website www.aspden.org but is instead to be found in the Essay section on website:
Page 111: The mass ratio term as cubed and then equated to the odd
integer 1843 should be reformulated in reciprocal form to become a cube
Page 126: The formulation of 2μ in the equation at the middle of the page should be changed to 2 times (2μ).
Page 143: The book title on the first line of this page should read Our Final Century.
Links to References
Pages 53, 108, 119 and 150: The full text of the Hadronic Journal pages referenced can be seen by looking at Part 2 of my book Aether Science Papers:
Page 131: The link to the published papers is:
Pages 152, 155, 157, 163 and 171: The Energy Science Reports are of record in: